Thread:Prensky and 21st Century Education Post:Prensky and 21st Century Education Author: Louise Hall Posted Date: 14 March 2016 18:09 Status:Published
Prensky
By Prensky's (2001) terms I am a digital immigrant - I was born in the 70's and I wasn't using a computer/tablet/smartphone before I could walk and talk.
However, I refute Prensky labelling me as a digital immigrant and while reading his article I had to keep reminding myself that Prensky wrote this article 15 years ago. I have grown up with a wide range of technology and, I think most importantly, been a part of its evolution. I grew up in the 80's where every household in our neighbourhood debated VHS or beta, I used a typewriter for my high school assignments, our first family computer used 7" floppy disks to save our work, I bought my first mobile phone in 2006 (and haven't been without one since!), I used an overhead projector to deliver lessons, bought my first digital camera in 2001 and paid an astonishing $1000 for 2.1 megapixel (!!!!) and I used dial-up internet (terrible for bidding on ebay!). I am fortunate to be surrounded by digital technology, as I am able to afford it and have access to it - iPad, iPhone, touch screen home computer, broadband internet, digital camera, smart tv - even my car is keyless! I never read the manual for new devices, and I always go to the internet for an answer first and I text on a daily basis! Mr Prensky - do you have a label just for me?
I have read this article in another subject and one of my classmates brought to my attention some new terms that Prensky could now consider: digital recluse, digital explorer, digital innovator, digital addict and digital tourist Toledo (2007). I think the term digital recluse is a more accurate label for many in my current teaching environment - those who don't, or can't, embrace or access technology and teach it in isolation. Me - I think I am a digital explorer, addict and integrator.
21st Century Learners
Firstly I think it's interesting that we are well into the 15th year of the 21st century and we are still trying to define what a 21st century learner is.
I believe that a 21st century learner is multifaceted. They are multiliterate, collaborative and inquiry learners.
They need to have skills to assist them to learn (and later earn) in the digital age. These skills include (but are not limited to):
the ability to effectively interact with all forms of literacy including images (both digital and visual), aural, written (that is to be multiliterate)
the confidence to be risktakers
cognisance of the power of digital and social media and the ability to use it confidently, appropriately, critically and respectfully
confidence to creatively solve problems (individually and collaboratively)
the ability to function in social, community, workplace and educational arenas with confidence
finely tuned communication skills
In 84 years time will they still be 21st century learners? I honestly do not know. Were the technological advances and the way our children learn even imaginable 84 years ago? We like to label our students in this manner as a way to define them as identifying them as being of a different (digital) generation.
These labels impact on the way we lead the implementation of ICT in our organisations as our teachers also need to become the same types of learners as their students and let go of the more traditional "chalk & talk" models of instruction.
I found this YouTube clip which helps to explain my understanding of 21st century learners:
Am I the only one who is working in a school that does NOT have an ICT policy?
We have a systemic policy, which is focused more on acceptable use, but I have nothing that I can share with the group let alone guide my teaching...
Thread:Question for the forum Post:RE: Question for the forum Author: Katrina Kerr Posted Date: 14 March 2016 22:05 Status:Published
Hi Louise,
Our school does have an ICT poilicy for our 1:1 program BUT it is also more about acceptable use than a policy. There is a page of "reasons" to convince parents that a 1:1 program is necessary for our school. I am hoping that my work in this subject will go a long way towards improving that policy and/or to developing an overall school ICT policy. I don't think you are alone. I looked online to find other policies and ended up deciding that ours was just going to have to do because they all seemed to be about acceptable use.
Thread:Question for the forum Post:RE: Question for the forum Author: Louise Hall Posted Date: 14 March 2016 22:45 Status:Published
Thanks Katrina - I'm glad I'm not alone!
We don't have 1:1 at our school as we haven't had the "buy in" from staff and parents yet. I'm hoping my work in this subject will help too, although there is not a great deal of importance placed on the role of ICT at my school or in my system as a whole. We tried to introduce 1:1 last year to commence this year and parents were furious. They could not get past the cost issue and unfortunately did not come in to the meeting with an open mind. Introducing 1:1 is a huge task (I did it at another school), but unfortunately I am not the ICT Coordinator at my current school and was not a part of any of the planning meetings. I can't help but think an ICT policy may have helped in this instance...
Thread:Problem solving Post:RE: Problem solving Author: Louise Hall Posted Date: 14 May 2016 19:41 Status:Published
We are having this discussion in my school community at the moment regarding BYOD. It makes economic sense to implement BYOD as we are throwing money away by trying to keep up to date with the latest technology, however, there is a great deal of resistance from our parent community about BYOD. As a fee paying school we often hear the cries of "I pay my fees. Where does my money go? I'm not buying a device for school - if the school wants it then they can buy it!" Much easier said than done I'm afraid. We can't continue to purchase technology AND pay general running costs, wages, and resource other areas of the curriculum (sport, art, music, science etc) without increasing fees. Our ICT expenditure in the last 12 months was $28,000. After replacing teacher laptops, purchasing 10 new iPads for classroom use and general expenses there was nothing left. Our IWB's are nearing the end of their lifespan, the wifi network needs upgrading, our donated class set of laptops are unreliable and most of our iPads are so old they can no longer able to be updated. An increase in fees could result in a decrease in enrolments as financial stress makes it unaffordable for their children to attend (especially more than one child). Then how do we make access to technology equitable? Like most schools we too have the problem of the haves and have-nots. Some parents are happy to provide the devices, others are resistant to let their children bring their devices for fear of them being lost, stolen or damaged and there is those that simply cannot afford it. So what do we do?
I agree with Flanagan and Jacobsen (2003) that all stakeholders are to be involved in a shared vision, but I think there will always be winners and losers. Thread:Problem solving from a leadership perspective Post:RE: Problem solving from a leadership perspective Author: Louise Hall Posted Date: 14 May 2016 20:30 Status:Published
Ashleigh - you are describing my current workplace!!! We have a small staff and a student population of just over 200.
This is the 3rd year at my current school. As a teacher with 20 years experience (but only 3 year trained) I needed to somehow stand out in the field of applicants so I sent my application via email. This is not protocol and many schools I applied to refused to accept (or even look at) my application unless it was in paper form (and four copies of my complete application with supporting documents for the interview panel). But I wanted to show my skills in ICT!!! My current Principal accepted my email application as I had included a link to my ePortfolio which included my official application, supporting documents and a demonstartion of some of ICT skills that I use in my classroom. On my home page is a voki avatar greeting visitors and on others pages is a prezi addressing the selection criteria and a Glogster poster of my extensive list of PD. My Principal was immediately hooked and I was fortunate to be employed in a permanent position (surpassing current staff members who were employed on temporary contracts). My brief was simple: embed ICT into the curriculum and invite others to join in. My 5/6 class (and parents) have loved it! My Principal too has loved it and when our Director visits she always brought her to visit my classroom. Once a term I led staff meetings called "AppyHour" where I could demonstrate how to embed apps and web 2.0 tools into the curriculum and teachers would have the opportunity to try them out for themselves. Some joined in, some answered emails or marked work. My previous students who are now in High School are well above their peers in terms of using ICT effectively to present information and complete assigned tasks in creative ways.
I believe those who advocate change take the biggest risks in their professional roles - especially in small schools. Being new, popular and innovative can be a real threat to those who lack knowledge. Otherwise known as tall poppy syndrome. We have a leadership team of four - and only my Principal is my champion. I especially liked your statement:
By having a leadership team that falls to understand ICT in general and thus the importance of ICT in education itself it furthermore leads to other problems among staff.
So after making innovative changes to the 5/6 curriculum this year I was moved to 1/2. I have an IWB that has been out of action all year and desperately needs replacing, my set of 6 classroom iPads have been unavailable for use in my classroom for 8 weeks due to apple configurator problems and it appears that they can no longer be updated nor will they allow apps to be uploaded. I have a pod of 6 CPU's (to be shared with 3 other classes) that don't cope with different children logging in to the machine as it takes nearly an hour to load their profiles. I feel that I have been placed in a position where the egos of the leadership team are testing me...or setting me up to fail. I don't want to become another statistic of the high rollover of staff, but I may not have a choice.
When you're skilled and passionate about something you want others to get excited about and it sounds to me that your gentle and proactive approach is making a positive impact to your leadership team - well done :)
Thread:Week 7 Reflection Post:RE: Week 7 Reflection Author: Louise Hall Posted Date: 14 May 2016 20:42 Status:Published
Hi Beverley
Wow your role is very busy indeed! I think schools often confuse the real role of ICT Coordinator as that of on site technical problem solver instead of the manager of teaching and learning in ICT. Do you agree?
I'm sure you've already heard of it but the SAMR model could be an effective way to monitor how your staff are currently designing tasks that impact on student outcomes. I'm a big fan of Kathy Shrock and there is some helpful information here if you are interested: http://www.schrockguide.net/samr.html
Thanks Louise. I'll take a look at the site. Yes, its very easy to lose sight of the fact that I was meant to be a mentor to teachers but inevitably technical issues often take over and of course teachers want their iPads/IWB's working so this has to take precedence. At the moment I am also setting up SchoolStream which will be rolled out in a few weeks. Although I love do this type of thing, it does take me away from assisting teachers. Thread:Examples of appropriate ICT plans - ATT Michael Post:RE: Examples of appropriate ICT plans - ATT Michael Author: Louise Hall Posted Date: 14 May 2016 21:14 Status:Published
Hi Jennifer and Michael
Have you both found that schools (in general) focus merely on strategic plans for funding ICT and not the teaching and learning of ICT? My school does not have a plan and I am yet to find one in my system...
I have seen this plan for a previous subject and have found that it covers most of what I would expect in a working policy.
Thread:Module 7 - Curriculum development for ICT integration Post:RE: Module 7 - Curriculum development for ICT integration Author: Louise Hall Posted Date: 14 May 2016 21:33 Status:Published
Although providing rich learning experiences, where students were encouraged to pursue their own interests and create, innovate and be inspired, there were growing issues surrounding accountability. Particularly in the form of high stakes testing (eg. National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy - NAPLAN). As the research suggests, my previous school’s students did not perform exceptionally well on these tests and the results were a constant concern for leadership, as well as for the school review. This brought into question whether this form of education was in fact superior.
A quick reflection from me: When my daughter was in year 3 her NAPLAN spelling results were very low. She is an excellent speller. When I looked closer at her results it appeared that in most cases she had provided more than one answer to the question. After discussing this with her she told me she found it very hard to rub out her mistakes as the eraser was on the end of the provided pencil and she had coloured in the bubble too hard to rub it out completely. Whether I agree with NAPLAN or not is not the issue, but there is an obvious flaw with the automarking process. I can't help but wonder if your students had the opportunity to complete NAPLAN using ICT if their results would improve, especially in the tests where there is only 1 correct answer? I believe they would. Thread:ICT Integration and Pedagogical Change Post:ICT Integration and Pedagogical Change Author: Louise Hall Posted Date: 15 May 2016 00:50 Status:Published
"The evidence suggests that new affordances provided by ICT-based learning environments require teachers to undertake more complex pedagogical reasoning than before in their planning and teaching that incorporates knowledge of specific affordances and how these relate to their subject-based teaching objectives as well as the knowledge they have always needed to plan for their students’ learning." (Webb & Cox, 2004). What do you think the authors of this article mean by this statement? Are you seeing this "complex pedagogical reasoning" in your organisation? Why/why not?
I think the authors are asking teachers to examine WHY they select an ICT tool/website/activity/task. What is the learning outcome they hope is to be achieved? For example: In a year 1 maths class, is using the IWB with an interactive hundreds board to identify the missing number about the child knowing the missing number? Or knowing how to successfully reveal the missing number? Is it knowledge or skill that determines their success? The “affordances depend on both the learning environment and the action capabilities of the learner.” (Webb and Cox 2003 p 238). Unfortunately, at this stage, I am not seeing this in my organisation.
Watson (2001) investigates ideas about the focus of the ICT in education issue, and postulates that ICT is still an outsider and "imposed" in educational settings. To what extent do you think this is accurate in both your own setting, but in general now that we have had 10 more years of ICT integration. Some wider reading might be useful when thinking about this question.
I agree that ICT is still an outsider and “imposed” in educational settings. Watson argues that teachers will need to change everything that they know and are skilled at: pedagogy and knowledge. They will need to step out of their comfort zones. For me the biggest factor is “buy in”. In my school teachers need to embrace technology and not see it as an “extra” thing they need to learn and master, but view it as a way to enhance what they already do – and do very well. Another contributing factor is access to technology. If the equipment is out of date and unreliable then how can it be effective? Why would people want to use it when they face continual barriers and unecessary frustrations?
What shifts in thinking and approach in a pedagogical sense are needed to ensure the appropriate approach to the integration of ICT into education for learning?
I have been looking at the SAMR model of Dr Ruben Puentedura, which moves the learning design from teacher directed to student initiated (Denby, Oh, Park, Robb, & Lister, 2016). I have found this site very useful at explaining the model: https://www.graphite.org/blog/samr-and-blooms-taxonomy-assembling-the-puzzle There are many educators applying this thinking and I have found that Jen Roberts’ TECH model is a much easier way to explain it. Jen maps the 4 levels of SAMR against TECH:
Traditional - teacher led, traditional pedagogy with technology support.
Enhanced - teacher uses a range of technologies and media to enhance the learning experience.
Choice - teacher establishes the grand goals for learning and offers students choices, in activities, digital tools and assessment processes.
Handover - Students’ interests drive the learning experience, with teacher guidance and the flexible choice of tools and technologies to achieve an authentic and exemplary product. (Roberts, 2013)
In my educational setting we are at the T and E stages of Roberts levels (or the S and A of Puentedura’s model). ICT Integration is limited by teachers understanding and knowledge of how and what to integrate. SAMR was briefly explained in one staff meeting mid-way through last year and has not been revisited since. The teachers at my school are all excellent educators, but a lack of leadership and initiative (apart from myself and one other staff member), as well as a lack of reliable technology devices, has had little affect or influence for a shift in thinking and approach in relation to ICT.
Without naming names, provide an example of a classroom/situation where ICT has been introduced to some degree and to what extent the pedagogical practices in the class shifted (or not). Why do you think this happened?
Last year I presented my class with a research task on a saint that they saw as a role model to them to guide them on what name they would choose for their Confirmation. The task itself is a part of our RE curriculum, and an integral part of the Confirmation journey, and was no different to what previous students before them have been required to do. For as long as anyone on staff could remember this has always been presented as a poster. Over the previous 18 months I had introduced and exposed the children to a wide range of web 2.0 tools that would enable them to complete the same task but in a different format. I gave the children free reign on what tool they would like to choose (network settings permitting of course!) Their chosen formats varied greatly and some chose tools that they had discovered and experimented with themselves! Winning!!! eBooks, Prezi, iMovie, blogs, weebly, Canva, Glogster, PowerPoint and emaze were some of the examples of what the children chose. Every child was able to complete the task and were marked according to the rubric in terms of content, but the biggest shift was that the children were able to decide on what would work best for them. They were in control. I would evaluate this experience as C (bordering on H) according to Roberts, or M or R according to Puentedura’s model. I considered it a start in the right direction.
Webb, M. and M. Cox (2004). "A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology." Technology, Pedagogy and Education 13(3): 235-286.
Denby, J., Oh, E., Park, J., Robb, M., & Lister, H. (2016). SAMR and Bloom's Taxonomy: Assembling the Puzzle. Graphite.org. Retrieved 14 May 2016, from https://www.graphite.org/blog/samr-and-blooms-taxonomy-assembling-the-puzzle
Roberts, J. (2013). Literacy, Technology, Policy, Etc....A Blog: Turning SAMR into TECH: What models are good for. Litandtech.com. Retrieved 14 May 2016, from http://www.litandtech.com/2013/11/turning-samr-into-tech-what-models-are.html
Post:Prensky and 21st Century Education
Author: Louise Hall
Posted Date: 14 March 2016 18:09
Status:Published
Prensky
By Prensky's (2001) terms I am a digital immigrant - I was born in the 70's and I wasn't using a computer/tablet/smartphone before I could walk and talk.
However, I refute Prensky labelling me as a digital immigrant and while reading his article I had to keep reminding myself that Prensky wrote this article 15 years ago. I have grown up with a wide range of technology and, I think most importantly, been a part of its evolution. I grew up in the 80's where every household in our neighbourhood debated VHS or beta, I used a typewriter for my high school assignments, our first family computer used 7" floppy disks to save our work, I bought my first mobile phone in 2006 (and haven't been without one since!), I used an overhead projector to deliver lessons, bought my first digital camera in 2001 and paid an astonishing $1000 for 2.1 megapixel (!!!!) and I used dial-up internet (terrible for bidding on ebay!). I am fortunate to be surrounded by digital technology, as I am able to afford it and have access to it - iPad, iPhone, touch screen home computer, broadband internet, digital camera, smart tv - even my car is keyless! I never read the manual for new devices, and I always go to the internet for an answer first and I text on a daily basis! Mr Prensky - do you have a label just for me?
I have read this article in another subject and one of my classmates brought to my attention some new terms that Prensky could now consider: digital recluse, digital explorer, digital innovator, digital addict and digital tourist Toledo (2007). I think the term digital recluse is a more accurate label for many in my current teaching environment - those who don't, or can't, embrace or access technology and teach it in isolation. Me - I think I am a digital explorer, addict and integrator.
21st Century Learners
Firstly I think it's interesting that we are well into the 15th year of the 21st century and we are still trying to define what a 21st century learner is.
I believe that a 21st century learner is multifaceted. They are multiliterate, collaborative and inquiry learners.
They need to have skills to assist them to learn (and later earn) in the digital age. These skills include (but are not limited to):
- the ability to effectively interact with all forms of literacy including images (both digital and visual), aural, written (that is to be multiliterate)
- the confidence to be risktakers
- cognisance of the power of digital and social media and the ability to use it confidently, appropriately, critically and respectfully
- confidence to creatively solve problems (individually and collaboratively)
- the ability to function in social, community, workplace and educational arenas with confidence
- finely tuned communication skills
In 84 years time will they still be 21st century learners? I honestly do not know. Were the technological advances and the way our children learn even imaginable 84 years ago? We like to label our students in this manner as a way to define them as identifying them as being of a different (digital) generation.These labels impact on the way we lead the implementation of ICT in our organisations as our teachers also need to become the same types of learners as their students and let go of the more traditional "chalk & talk" models of instruction.
I found this YouTube clip which helps to explain my understanding of 21st century learners:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwJIhZcAd0I
Thread:Question for the forum
Post:Question for the forum
Author: Louise Hall
Posted Date: 14 March 2016 18:28
Status:Published
Am I the only one who is working in a school that does NOT have an ICT policy?
We have a systemic policy, which is focused more on acceptable use, but I have nothing that I can share with the group let alone guide my teaching...
Thread:Question for the forum
Post:RE: Question for the forum
Author: Katrina Kerr
Posted Date: 14 March 2016 22:05
Status:Published
Hi Louise,
Our school does have an ICT poilicy for our 1:1 program BUT it is also more about acceptable use than a policy. There is a page of "reasons" to convince parents that a 1:1 program is necessary for our school. I am hoping that my work in this subject will go a long way towards improving that policy and/or to developing an overall school ICT policy. I don't think you are alone. I looked online to find other policies and ended up deciding that ours was just going to have to do because they all seemed to be about acceptable use.
Thread:Question for the forum
Post:RE: Question for the forum
Author: Louise Hall
Posted Date: 14 March 2016 22:45
Status:Published
Thanks Katrina - I'm glad I'm not alone!
We don't have 1:1 at our school as we haven't had the "buy in" from staff and parents yet. I'm hoping my work in this subject will help too, although there is not a great deal of importance placed on the role of ICT at my school or in my system as a whole. We tried to introduce 1:1 last year to commence this year and parents were furious. They could not get past the cost issue and unfortunately did not come in to the meeting with an open mind. Introducing 1:1 is a huge task (I did it at another school), but unfortunately I am not the ICT Coordinator at my current school and was not a part of any of the planning meetings. I can't help but think an ICT policy may have helped in this instance...
Thread:Problem solving
Post:RE: Problem solving
Author: Louise Hall
Posted Date: 14 May 2016 19:41
Status:Published
We are having this discussion in my school community at the moment regarding BYOD. It makes economic sense to implement BYOD as we are throwing money away by trying to keep up to date with the latest technology, however, there is a great deal of resistance from our parent community about BYOD. As a fee paying school we often hear the cries of "I pay my fees. Where does my money go? I'm not buying a device for school - if the school wants it then they can buy it!" Much easier said than done I'm afraid. We can't continue to purchase technology AND pay general running costs, wages, and resource other areas of the curriculum (sport, art, music, science etc) without increasing fees. Our ICT expenditure in the last 12 months was $28,000. After replacing teacher laptops, purchasing 10 new iPads for classroom use and general expenses there was nothing left. Our IWB's are nearing the end of their lifespan, the wifi network needs upgrading, our donated class set of laptops are unreliable and most of our iPads are so old they can no longer able to be updated. An increase in fees could result in a decrease in enrolments as financial stress makes it unaffordable for their children to attend (especially more than one child). Then how do we make access to technology equitable? Like most schools we too have the problem of the haves and have-nots. Some parents are happy to provide the devices, others are resistant to let their children bring their devices for fear of them being lost, stolen or damaged and there is those that simply cannot afford it. So what do we do?
I agree with Flanagan and Jacobsen (2003) that all stakeholders are to be involved in a shared vision, but I think there will always be winners and losers.
Thread:Problem solving from a leadership perspective
Post:RE: Problem solving from a leadership perspective
Author: Louise Hall Posted Date: 14 May 2016 20:30
Status:Published
Ashleigh - you are describing my current workplace!!! We have a small staff and a student population of just over 200.
This is the 3rd year at my current school. As a teacher with 20 years experience (but only 3 year trained) I needed to somehow stand out in the field of applicants so I sent my application via email. This is not protocol and many schools I applied to refused to accept (or even look at) my application unless it was in paper form (and four copies of my complete application with supporting documents for the interview panel). But I wanted to show my skills in ICT!!! My current Principal accepted my email application as I had included a link to my ePortfolio which included my official application, supporting documents and a demonstartion of some of ICT skills that I use in my classroom. On my home page is a voki avatar greeting visitors and on others pages is a prezi addressing the selection criteria and a Glogster poster of my extensive list of PD. My Principal was immediately hooked and I was fortunate to be employed in a permanent position (surpassing current staff members who were employed on temporary contracts). My brief was simple: embed ICT into the curriculum and invite others to join in. My 5/6 class (and parents) have loved it! My Principal too has loved it and when our Director visits she always brought her to visit my classroom. Once a term I led staff meetings called "AppyHour" where I could demonstrate how to embed apps and web 2.0 tools into the curriculum and teachers would have the opportunity to try them out for themselves. Some joined in, some answered emails or marked work. My previous students who are now in High School are well above their peers in terms of using ICT effectively to present information and complete assigned tasks in creative ways.
I believe those who advocate change take the biggest risks in their professional roles - especially in small schools. Being new, popular and innovative can be a real threat to those who lack knowledge. Otherwise known as tall poppy syndrome. We have a leadership team of four - and only my Principal is my champion. I especially liked your statement:
By having a leadership team that falls to understand ICT in general and thus the importance of ICT in education itself it furthermore leads to other problems among staff.
So after making innovative changes to the 5/6 curriculum this year I was moved to 1/2. I have an IWB that has been out of action all year and desperately needs replacing, my set of 6 classroom iPads have been unavailable for use in my classroom for 8 weeks due to apple configurator problems and it appears that they can no longer be updated nor will they allow apps to be uploaded. I have a pod of 6 CPU's (to be shared with 3 other classes) that don't cope with different children logging in to the machine as it takes nearly an hour to load their profiles. I feel that I have been placed in a position where the egos of the leadership team are testing me...or setting me up to fail. I don't want to become another statistic of the high rollover of staff, but I may not have a choice.
When you're skilled and passionate about something you want others to get excited about and it sounds to me that your gentle and proactive approach is making a positive impact to your leadership team - well done :)
Thread:Week 7 Reflection
Post:RE: Week 7 Reflection
Author: Louise Hall Posted Date: 14 May 2016 20:42
Status:Published
Hi Beverley
Wow your role is very busy indeed! I think schools often confuse the real role of ICT Coordinator as that of on site technical problem solver instead of the manager of teaching and learning in ICT. Do you agree?
I'm sure you've already heard of it but the SAMR model could be an effective way to monitor how your staff are currently designing tasks that impact on student outcomes. I'm a big fan of Kathy Shrock and there is some helpful information here if you are interested: http://www.schrockguide.net/samr.html
Thread:Week 7 Reflection
Post:RE: Week 7 Reflection
Author: Beverley Keltie
Posted Date: 21 May 2016 22:31
Status:Published
Thanks Louise. I'll take a look at the site. Yes, its very easy to lose sight of the fact that I was meant to be a mentor to teachers but inevitably technical issues often take over and of course teachers want their iPads/IWB's working so this has to take precedence. At the moment I am also setting up SchoolStream which will be rolled out in a few weeks. Although I love do this type of thing, it does take me away from assisting teachers.
Thread:Examples of appropriate ICT plans - ATT Michael
Post:RE: Examples of appropriate ICT plans - ATT Michael
Author: Louise Hall
Posted Date: 14 May 2016 21:14
Status:Published
Hi Jennifer and Michael
Have you both found that schools (in general) focus merely on strategic plans for funding ICT and not the teaching and learning of ICT? My school does not have a plan and I am yet to find one in my system...
I have seen this plan for a previous subject and have found that it covers most of what I would expect in a working policy.
Thread:Module 7 - Curriculum development for ICT integration
Post:RE: Module 7 - Curriculum development for ICT integration
Author: Louise Hall
Posted Date: 14 May 2016 21:33
Status:Published
Although providing rich learning experiences, where students were encouraged to pursue their own interests and create, innovate and be inspired, there were growing issues surrounding accountability. Particularly in the form of high stakes testing (eg. National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy - NAPLAN). As the research suggests, my previous school’s students did not perform exceptionally well on these tests and the results were a constant concern for leadership, as well as for the school review. This brought into question whether this form of education was in fact superior.
A quick reflection from me: When my daughter was in year 3 her NAPLAN spelling results were very low. She is an excellent speller. When I looked closer at her results it appeared that in most cases she had provided more than one answer to the question. After discussing this with her she told me she found it very hard to rub out her mistakes as the eraser was on the end of the provided pencil and she had coloured in the bubble too hard to rub it out completely. Whether I agree with NAPLAN or not is not the issue, but there is an obvious flaw with the automarking process. I can't help but wonder if your students had the opportunity to complete NAPLAN using ICT if their results would improve, especially in the tests where there is only 1 correct answer? I believe they would.
Thread:ICT Integration and Pedagogical Change
Post:ICT Integration and Pedagogical Change
Author: Louise Hall
Posted Date: 15 May 2016 00:50
Status:Published
"The evidence suggests that new affordances provided by ICT-based learning environments require teachers to undertake more complex pedagogical reasoning than before in their planning and teaching that incorporates knowledge of specific affordances and how these relate to their subject-based teaching objectives as well as the knowledge they have always needed to plan for their students’ learning." (Webb & Cox, 2004). What do you think the authors of this article mean by this statement? Are you seeing this "complex pedagogical reasoning" in your organisation? Why/why not?
I think the authors are asking teachers to examine WHY they select an ICT tool/website/activity/task. What is the learning outcome they hope is to be achieved? For example: In a year 1 maths class, is using the IWB with an interactive hundreds board to identify the missing number about the child knowing the missing number? Or knowing how to successfully reveal the missing number? Is it knowledge or skill that determines their success? The “affordances depend on both the learning environment and the action capabilities of the learner.” (Webb and Cox 2003 p 238). Unfortunately, at this stage, I am not seeing this in my organisation.
Watson (2001) investigates ideas about the focus of the ICT in education issue, and postulates that ICT is still an outsider and "imposed" in educational settings. To what extent do you think this is accurate in both your own setting, but in general now that we have had 10 more years of ICT integration. Some wider reading might be useful when thinking about this question.
I agree that ICT is still an outsider and “imposed” in educational settings. Watson argues that teachers will need to change everything that they know and are skilled at: pedagogy and knowledge. They will need to step out of their comfort zones. For me the biggest factor is “buy in”. In my school teachers need to embrace technology and not see it as an “extra” thing they need to learn and master, but view it as a way to enhance what they already do – and do very well. Another contributing factor is access to technology. If the equipment is out of date and unreliable then how can it be effective? Why would people want to use it when they face continual barriers and unecessary frustrations?
What shifts in thinking and approach in a pedagogical sense are needed to ensure the appropriate approach to the integration of ICT into education for learning?
I have been looking at the SAMR model of Dr Ruben Puentedura, which moves the learning design from teacher directed to student initiated (Denby, Oh, Park, Robb, & Lister, 2016). I have found this site very useful at explaining the model: https://www.graphite.org/blog/samr-and-blooms-taxonomy-assembling-the-puzzle There are many educators applying this thinking and I have found that Jen Roberts’ TECH model is a much easier way to explain it. Jen maps the 4 levels of SAMR against TECH:
Traditional - teacher led, traditional pedagogy with technology support.
Enhanced - teacher uses a range of technologies and media to enhance the learning experience.
Choice - teacher establishes the grand goals for learning and offers students choices, in activities, digital tools and assessment processes.
Handover - Students’ interests drive the learning experience, with teacher guidance and the flexible choice of tools and technologies to achieve an authentic and exemplary product. (Roberts, 2013)
In my educational setting we are at the T and E stages of Roberts levels (or the S and A of Puentedura’s model). ICT Integration is limited by teachers understanding and knowledge of how and what to integrate. SAMR was briefly explained in one staff meeting mid-way through last year and has not been revisited since. The teachers at my school are all excellent educators, but a lack of leadership and initiative (apart from myself and one other staff member), as well as a lack of reliable technology devices, has had little affect or influence for a shift in thinking and approach in relation to ICT.
Without naming names, provide an example of a classroom/situation where ICT has been introduced to some degree and to what extent the pedagogical practices in the class shifted (or not). Why do you think this happened?
Last year I presented my class with a research task on a saint that they saw as a role model to them to guide them on what name they would choose for their Confirmation. The task itself is a part of our RE curriculum, and an integral part of the Confirmation journey, and was no different to what previous students before them have been required to do. For as long as anyone on staff could remember this has always been presented as a poster. Over the previous 18 months I had introduced and exposed the children to a wide range of web 2.0 tools that would enable them to complete the same task but in a different format. I gave the children free reign on what tool they would like to choose (network settings permitting of course!) Their chosen formats varied greatly and some chose tools that they had discovered and experimented with themselves! Winning!!! eBooks, Prezi, iMovie, blogs, weebly, Canva, Glogster, PowerPoint and emaze were some of the examples of what the children chose. Every child was able to complete the task and were marked according to the rubric in terms of content, but the biggest shift was that the children were able to decide on what would work best for them. They were in control. I would evaluate this experience as C (bordering on H) according to Roberts, or M or R according to Puentedura’s model. I considered it a start in the right direction.
Webb, M. and M. Cox (2004). "A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology." Technology, Pedagogy and Education 13(3): 235-286.
Denby, J., Oh, E., Park, J., Robb, M., & Lister, H. (2016). SAMR and Bloom's Taxonomy: Assembling the Puzzle. Graphite.org. Retrieved 14 May 2016, from https://www.graphite.org/blog/samr-and-blooms-taxonomy-assembling-the-puzzle
Roberts, J. (2013). Literacy, Technology, Policy, Etc....A Blog: Turning SAMR into TECH: What models are good for. Litandtech.com. Retrieved 14 May 2016, from http://www.litandtech.com/2013/11/turning-samr-into-tech-what-models-are.html